Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11600
- 11619)
11600. But we are not prepared to continue the
windfall of the below market rents by subsidising these businesses
in a way that other businesses displaced by compulsory purchase
would never be subsidised. That is a step we are not prepared
to take.
(Mr King) I understand that is a step you are
not prepared to take.
11601. Thank you. Can we come to the batching
plant, and, first of all, the context. You have made reference
to the environment around the batching plant and talked about
Westbourne ward. I assume that is the ward to the south of the
railway line, is it?
(Mr King) It is actually towards north and
south.
11602. In respect of the areas to the south,
you made specific reference to the Brunel Estate. Presumably the
Brunel Estate had been constructed and was occupied in 1982 when
the permission under which the batching plant now operates was
granted.
(Mr King) Yes, it would have been finished
at that time.
11603. So far as the land to the north of the
batching plant is concerned, between that land and the batching
plant is of course the Westway.
(Mr King) Correct.
11604. Which is both a major physical barrier
and also a major noise source in its own right, is it not?
(Mr King) It is indeed.
11605. So far as the principle of the batching
plant coming back is concerned, I do have the relevant planning
policy, but the Committee are generally not keen on planning policies
in any detail.
(Mr King) Who is?
11606. Presumably you would accept that in planning
policy terms there is a need to reinstate a batching plant at
that site. Or should we look at the London plan policy?
(Mr King) We are not contesting the London
plan policy.
11607. Are you contesting the principle that,
in accordance with the London plan policy, there is a need to
put a rail-serve facility back there?
(Mr King) We acknowledge what the London plan
policy says about this site, yes.
11608. Perhaps we could look at the London plan
policy, policy 4.5(a).[9]
Apologies to the Committee, but it is only one line: "Spatial
policies to support better use of aggregates UDP policies should
... " and then it is the sixth bullet: "Protect existing
rail capacity to handle and process aggregates. In accordance
with that policy, Westminster should support the reinstatement
of replacing the batching plant."
(Mr King) Yes. It also says, "Minimise
the movement of aggregates by road" which we would also support
which your scheme now will not do.
11609. Are you content, subject to some further
detailed discussion about the conditions, with a permanent batching
plant, and your real concern is the temporary plant?
(Mr King) I think the main concern is the way
this site has been dealt with by the Promoter throughout, and
the lack of consistent information—including whatever the
representative from English, Welsh and Scottish Railways was talking
about yesterday on the site, needs to be held over until the Committee
has had the chance to see that petition in future.
11610. To go behind the policy for a moment,
if you do not reinstate a permanent batching plant on this site
which is rail-served, the inevitable consequence is that cement
would have to travel further by road, is it not?
(Mr King) That is correct.
11611. So far as the permanent batching plant
is concerned, under the scheme which is going to be promoted by
AP3 you will be consulted on the conditions.
(Mr King) Correct.
11612. In fact, you have already been consulted
on some draft conditions, and, as I understand your evidence in
chief and the notes of a meting, we are pretty close to agreeing
those drafts.
(Mr King) We have forwarded an advance set
of conditions which would be exactly what we would put up to committee,
along with a positive recommendation where there is to be a planning
application.
11613. Good. We are pretty much at one on that.
So far as the enforcement of conditions is concerned, the intention
is that that will be enforced by the Council in exactly the same
way as any other planning permission would be.
(Mr King) I am very happy to have that confirmed,
yes.
11614. If the Council were to set the conditions
and sign the terms of the Bill, so do it under the normal planning
process, that would be subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary
of State in any event, would it not?
(Mr King) Indeed, the Secretary of State's
power to safeguard. All this is covered by the safeguarding Directive.
11615. So far as the temporary plant is concerned,
it has never been said that it would be possible for it to have
a rail-served temporary plant, has it?
(Mr King) I have to say, sitting here, that
I cannot recall us ever being told it would have to be a rail-served
temporary facility.
11616. So there may have been a silence but—
(Mr King) There has been a lot of silence on
this, yes.
11617. I will ask Mr Berryman as to that.
(Mr King) I am sorry, what the Promoter might
know is one thing; what the Promoter has deigned to tell us is
the reason, I am afraid, I have a problem with your question.
11618. All right, Mr King, I will put it to
you again. The Promoter has never said to you that the temporary
facility will be rail-served.
(Mr King) I would want to go back to my files.
11619. So far as having a temporary facility,
which is, I quite accept, a relatively new proposal, if you do
not have a temporary facility, they you have no batching plant
on this site for the construction period of years.
(Mr King) Yes.
9 Committee Ref: A130, London Plan, Policy 4.5(a)
Spatial policies to support better use of aggregates (LINEWD-LPLN04-007). Back
| 
